3 ms·

What a bunch of propaganda. The central theme of the article is that if Apple could repatriate its $200 Billion, it would have more money to invest and create

What a bunch of propaganda. The central theme of the article is that if Apple could repatriate its $200 Billion, it would have more money to invest and create more jobs. But this assumes that Apple is not investing as much as it would like. There is no reason to believe that Apple feels it needs to invest more. And, if it did, it could borrow the money from its foreign subsidiaries and spend it without paying any taxes (and charge itself whatever it wanted in interest since it's borrowing from itself). As the past 9 years since the Great Recession have shown, companies do not make investments just because they have more money. They invest for business reasons. It is true that Apple investors will be worth more if the money is repatriated, but more jobs?? not so much.

valuearb 9y ago
So if repatriated, the money disappears? It’s not reinvested in Apple or other companies, put in the bank to be loaned out to other businesses, nor spent on goods and services? Cause all three of those things create jobs.
- mholmes680 9y ago
  I think OP's point is that its not "guaranteed" to do any of the things you listed. If the FED raises rates, the companies may want to hold it, as an example. Or if the best business application is to do a buyback or dividend, you're bypassing the jobs part. We're also talking two buckets of money. The money coming back in to the US, and the taxes the govt collects. I think this one-time tax money in this case is already spent with these tax cuts?
  - valuearb 9y ago
    both buybacks and dividends create jobs. in fact without buybacks and dividends no one would ever start a business and no jobs whatever be created, Other than sole proprietors.
    - namlem 9y ago
      Or worker co-ops.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        Problem with worker co-ops is access to capital. In a world where dividends and buybacks were banned, where would they get capital? Not from investors, because few sole proprietors would be wealthy enough to invest. Not from banks, because they would be hugely capital starved without investors to fund them. I'd like to imagine Ford Motor company could have been a worker co-op, but truth is it couldn't until later in life. Henry Ford raised $28,000 to start it in 1902, nominally that's around $1M today, but it's actually far more than that. Average income was around $450 a year, so he raised about 60 times the average worker's annual salary. Without wealthy investors, there was no shot at starting Ford. Once it was churning out Model Ts by the millions the workers co-op could have succeeded, but they could never get there.
mholmes680 9y ago
I disagree with your propaganda take on this because after i read this i finally understood the tax shelter piece (but maybe i'm naive). I do agree with everything else you said though. If I couple this with Warren Buffet recently advising that the Dow will go to 1 million in 100 yrs [0], I can read between the lines (as you always need to with Warren) that big money already knows it can keep its big money for a very long time. Getting value consolidated into a) a few really large companies; in b) preferably the US; c) quickly; seems to be the bet. I also agree that jobs is the target here. Special dividends and buybacks will be the way to extract this money back to the US economy (unless your a foreign rich investor who already sees this and starts pulling money out of oil and into the US - still a win for the US?). And then we get some more case studies in whether trickle-down works or not. If it does, we've created a (more?) solid small business climate, where theoretically more innovation and growth comes in. (?) If it doesn't, well, we'll continue to see the middle class disappear. At least that's what i think i see, but who knows on timeline and i'm not a finance guy. All I know is that this current tax plan puts about $60/month back in my pocket using my 2016 numbers, so if i invest that $60 into AAPL i'm most likely going to have more than $60*12 at the end of the year. [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=buffet+dow+10k https://www.google.com/search?q=buffet+dow+10k - and thats 1000000 in points, not dollars... (!)
jeffdavis 9y ago
They might pay it as dividends rather than reinvesting it. A lot of that may end up in the US economy.
chrisbennet 9y ago
Nick Hanourer addressed this in a TED talk: https://youtu.be/CKCvf8E7V1g https://youtu.be/CKCvf8E7V1g Companies make investments in response to consumer demand. In the case of Apple, I’m sure they have all the robots and workers they need in order to accomplish their goals (since they are sitting on billions already). A few billion more in the bank isn’t going make them go out and hire someone. You know what makes a company invest more? More customers. Customers are the real driver of growth.

valuearb 9y ago

So if repatriated, the money disappears? It’s not reinvested in Apple or other companies, put in the bank to be loaned out to other businesses, nor spent on goods and services? Cause all three of those things create jobs.

mholmes680 9y ago
I think OP's point is that its not "guaranteed" to do any of the things you listed. If the FED raises rates, the companies may want to hold it, as an example. Or if the best business application is to do a buyback or dividend, you're bypassing the jobs part. We're also talking two buckets of money. The money coming back in to the US, and the taxes the govt collects. I think this one-time tax money in this case is already spent with these tax cuts?
- valuearb 9y ago
  both buybacks and dividends create jobs. in fact without buybacks and dividends no one would ever start a business and no jobs whatever be created, Other than sole proprietors.
  - namlem 9y ago
    Or worker co-ops.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      Problem with worker co-ops is access to capital. In a world where dividends and buybacks were banned, where would they get capital? Not from investors, because few sole proprietors would be wealthy enough to invest. Not from banks, because they would be hugely capital starved without investors to fund them. I'd like to imagine Ford Motor company could have been a worker co-op, but truth is it couldn't until later in life. Henry Ford raised $28,000 to start it in 1902, nominally that's around $1M today, but it's actually far more than that. Average income was around $450 a year, so he raised about 60 times the average worker's annual salary. Without wealthy investors, there was no shot at starting Ford. Once it was churning out Model Ts by the millions the workers co-op could have succeeded, but they could never get there.

mholmes680 9y ago

I disagree with your propaganda take on this because after i read this i finally understood the tax shelter piece (but maybe i'm naive). I do agree with everything else you said though. If I couple this with Warren Buffet recently advising that the Dow will go to 1 million in 100 yrs [0], I can read between the lines (as you always need to with Warren) that big money already knows it can keep its big money for a very long time. Getting value consolidated into a) a few really large companies; in b) preferably the US; c) quickly; seems to be the bet. I also agree that jobs is the target here. Special dividends and buybacks will be the way to extract this money back to the US economy (unless your a foreign rich investor who already sees this and starts pulling money out of oil and into the US - still a win for the US?). And then we get some more case studies in whether trickle-down works or not. If it does, we've created a (more?) solid small business climate, where theoretically more innovation and growth comes in. (?) If it doesn't, well, we'll continue to see the middle class disappear. At least that's what i think i see, but who knows on timeline and i'm not a finance guy. All I know is that this current tax plan puts about $60/month back in my pocket using my 2016 numbers, so if i invest that $60 into AAPL i'm most likely going to have more than $60*12 at the end of the year. [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=buffet+dow+10k https://www.google.com/search?q=buffet+dow+10k - and thats 1000000 in points, not dollars... (!)

jeffdavis 9y ago

They might pay it as dividends rather than reinvesting it. A lot of that may end up in the US economy.

chrisbennet 9y ago

Nick Hanourer addressed this in a TED talk: https://youtu.be/CKCvf8E7V1g https://youtu.be/CKCvf8E7V1g Companies make investments in response to consumer demand. In the case of Apple, I’m sure they have all the robots and workers they need in order to accomplish their goals (since they are sitting on billions already). A few billion more in the bank isn’t going make them go out and hire someone. You know what makes a company invest more? More customers. Customers are the real driver of growth.